quote:
It is safe to say I have been shot at a hell of lot more than you have and by multiple automatic weapons, before you decide something can not be, listen to the video, use your brain if you have one and THINK FOR YOURSELF

Well I have never been shot at, nor did I watch the video. I have no experience whatsoever with any weapon other a basic rifle, and I'm terribly lacking in my understanding of physics.

So I'm about as ignorant as it comes regarding the specifics of this topic. But when asked to think for myself, all I needed to do is recall my first memories of exposure to scientific logic and experimentation in elementary school to know that this is a load of crap:

quote:
he proved there are two shooters and explains there locations within specific yardage

Unless used within the context of something like a "mathematical proof," one of the most fundamentally unscientific terms used to describe is science is "proof."

Science can't really "prove" anything, even when something has gone through the most comprehensive and stringent scientific research, controlling for every imaginable variable, testing every imaginable alternative, using every imaginable independent source of information and perspective, in an attempt to not only verify the theory, but most importantly falsify it. In fact, verification is not possible without falsification.

So we can even put aside the fact that this "proof" doesn't even pass the basic heuristic test of Occam's Razor. And we can put aside the fact that we don't even know if this basic cell phone audio is a reliable and valid instrument to use, or the fact that there are so many known and unknown variables that need to be accounted for even if we can use it.

The only "thinking for oneself" that is necessary in this case is to know that basic premise and process of the argument is fundamentally unscientific, so all of the scientific knowledge and application in the known world cannot overcome those fatal flaws.